I don't think he's becoming a full time royal. Charles won't put money aside for him to do full time duty.

Question: 'paying' someone to be a 'full time royal', isn't that the bailiwick of the reigning sovereign? In this case, the Queen? Why would Charles have anything to do with 'paying' Harry to do royal duties? Color me: Confused.

Am I being obtuse? I admit I am not that robust in my knowledge of these things. Harry is independently wealthy, I thought. What would Charles have to do with 'paying' Harry, except as Harry's father and maybe giving him a Trust Fund?

Question: 'paying' someone to be a 'full time royal', isn't that the bailiwick of the reigning sovereign? In this case, the Queen? Why would Charles have anything to do with 'paying' Harry to do royal duties? Color me: Confused.

Am I being obtuse? I admit I am not that robust in my knowledge of these things. Harry is independently wealthy, I thought. What would Charles have to do with 'paying' Harry, except as Harry's father and maybe giving him a Trust Fund?

Paying for the engagements undertaken by the Wales-Cambridge branch of the family is done by Charles (I believe it comes out of the Duchy), while paying for the engagements undertaken by the rest of the family is undertaken by the Queen.

It's not actually paying Harry, but covering the expenses that come with engagements.

Paying for the engagements undertaken by the Wales-Cambridge branch of the family is done by Charles (I believe it comes out of the Duchy), while paying for the engagements undertaken by the rest of the family is undertaken by the Queen.

It's not actually paying Harry, but covering the expenses that come with engagements.

I see. Thank you for this, Ish.

Two questions follow: who decided this? It seems to me the sovereign is in charge of the BRF PR. It should be that individual who doles out the money for anyone who represents the BRF. Seems only fair.

And then: why the statement that Charles does not want to pay for Harry's events? What's that about? Or is that bogus?

Two questions follow: who decided this? It seems to me the sovereign is in charge of the BRF PR. It should be that individual who doles out the money for anyone who represents the BRF. Seems only fair.

And then: why the statement that Charles does not want to pay for Harry's events? What's that about? Or is that bogus?

For the first question I'm not sure. Charles was paying for himself before his first marriage, so him paying for his wife and children is kind of a logical continuation of that.

I would guess that the reasoning lies within the Duchy (and I'm sure Bertie can correct if I'm wrong). The Monarch receives the incomes from the Duchy of Lancaster as Monarch, and funds the monarchy through this. The Duke of Cornwall (in this case, Charles) is the only other person in the royal family who has a position-based income - through the Duchy of Cornwall - so it makes sense that rather than being supported by the Monarch, the Duke (who is the heir apparent) is supported by his Duchy. The Duke's dependants are his wife and descendants, while the Monarch's are the remainder of the family.

As to the second, it was said last year I believe that Charles could not afford to pay for the Cambridges to become full time royals as doing so would require redirecting funds from other ventures - he pays a high tax rate on the Duchy incomes already, uses it to support his family privately, uses it to support the Duchy itself, and has a number of schemes within the Princes Trust. In short, it's not an issue of desire but an issue of being able to afford to pay for Harry to be a full time royal.

^ Charles does want to pay for Harry's (and William's and Kate's) engagements but only to a certain level.

However, Prince Philip will be 95 next year. He's hardly going to keep on till he's 100. It might be a case of 'the spirit is willing but...' It's all very well looking on the bright side and pretending the Queen and Prince Philip will be able to go on for years and years more. We hope they do. The odds are that they won't.

Prince Philip still has dozens of patronages, some of them connected to the military that will (not might, will) have to be distributed over his sons and grandsons over the next few years. Charles, (already extremely busy) Andrew and Edward will take up some of the slack, but what about the rest?

And what if the Queen's health fails as she enters her 90's? There may have to be some dipping into Duchy of Lancaster funds for Charles's sons to perform Royal engagements if necessary.

Charles can afford to fund the Cambridge's and Harry official engagements. He just have to cut down on his massive staff (that's much more larger than his mother's). With The Queen getting ready to turn 90, (God's willing) things are on it's way to changing anyway.

__________________"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

Two questions follow: who decided this? It seems to me the sovereign is in charge of the BRF PR. It should be that individual who doles out the money for anyone who represents the BRF. Seems only fair.

And then: why the statement that Charles does not want to pay for Harry's events? What's that about? Or is that bogus?

This is just my opinion, but the financial rationale bolsters what I have always thought was the real reason - supported both by the Queen and Charles.
And that's that they want William and Kate to enjoy the kids and one another while they can. That they don't want it to become the "Kate and William show" while the Queen is still alive and Charles not yet King. The press clamors for that, but I think the family wants to manage the star power of the Cambridges.
And I find that perfectly sensible and practical. JMO

This is just my opinion, but the financial rationale bolsters what I have always thought was the real reason - supported both by the Queen and Charles.
And that's that they want William and Kate to enjoy the kids and one another while they can. That they don't want it to become the "Kate and William show" while the Queen is still alive and Charles not yet King. The press clamors for that, but I think the family wants to manage the star power of the Cambridges.
And I find that perfectly sensible and practical. JMO

I completely agree and that is a very nice way of putting it: "managing their star power".

For the first question I'm not sure. Charles was paying for himself before his first marriage, so him paying for his wife and children is kind of a logical continuation of that.

I would guess that the reasoning lies within the Duchy (and I'm sure Bertie can correct if I'm wrong). The Monarch receives the incomes from the Duchy of Lancaster as Monarch, and funds the monarchy through this. The Duke of Cornwall (in this case, Charles) is the only other person in the royal family who has a position-based income - through the Duchy of Cornwall - so it makes sense that rather than being supported by the Monarch, the Duke (who is the heir apparent) is supported by his Duchy. The Duke's dependants are his wife and descendants, while the Monarch's are the remainder of the family.

As to the second, it was said last year I believe that Charles could not afford to pay for the Cambridges to become full time royals as doing so would require redirecting funds from other ventures - he pays a high tax rate on the Duchy incomes already, uses it to support his family privately, uses it to support the Duchy itself, and has a number of schemes within the Princes Trust. In short, it's not an issue of desire but an issue of being able to afford to pay for Harry to be a full time royal.

Thank you, Ish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS

This is just my opinion, but the financial rationale bolsters what I have always thought was the real reason - supported both by the Queen and Charles.

And that's that they want William and Kate to enjoy the kids and one another while they can. That they don't want it to become the "Kate and William show" while the Queen is still alive and Charles not yet King. The press clamors for that, but I think the family wants to manage the star power of the Cambridges.
And I find that perfectly sensible and practical. JMO

A good answer, and along the way I have thought the same upon occasion.

I also wonder about numbers of people. Charles is supporting quite a few people at this point 'in a manner to which they are accustomed'. There is himself and his wife, both sons, a daughter-in-law and two grandchildren. That's 7 people but how does he support them?

At some point this all gets confusing because there are properties involved and private fortunes. Does not William and Harry have their own money, inherited from their mother, to live on? Plus the housing is paid for by the Crown, not so?

How much money does it take to support a full-time royal? (Rhetorical question as I doubt there are figures for this). Salary and expenses? Or just expenses? What are the expenses, since a charity foots the bill for a royal visit, not so? (In my experience the talent pays nothing and usually gets a stipend, to boot, but royalty may be a different matter). Certainly the government must pay 'expenses', like with the wreath-laying. Is the royal really required to pay for anything in that ceremony other than (perhaps) the wreath they lay down?

I read the other day that Charles shells out perhaps as much as two and a half million on allowances for William, Kate and Harry from Duchy funds each year.

These are lifestyle expenses, assistance with Kate's wardrobe for official functions, help with the upkeep of the Cambridges' household and recurring expenses.

Harry would get a portion of that two and a half million. As he's unmarried and without dependants it's probably just a plain and simple allowance on top of the interest he gets from his investments from the inheritance from Diana. William gets that as well, of course. The vast majority of their inheritance would be invested for them, although from the age of 30 it was theoretically theirs to do with as they wished.

Security is always a huge item for royals performing engagements and there would also be the expense of using a helicopter if necessary, and the petrol in cars used by their retinue. The Queen helps with this. There might occasionally be hotel accommodation needed for themselves and the Royal Prorection Officers and equerries, ladies in waiting etc.

I read the other day that Charles shells out perhaps as much as two and a half million on allowances for William, Kate and Harry from Duchy funds each year.

These are lifestyle expenses, assistance with Kate's wardrobe for official functions, help with the upkeep of the Cambridges' household and recurring expenses.

Harry would get a portion of that two and a half million. As he's unmarried and without dependants it's probably just a plain and simple allowance on top of the interest he gets from his investments from the inheritance from Diana. William gets that as well, of course. The vast majority of their inheritance would be invested for them, although from the age of 30 it was theoretically theirs to do with as they wished.

The household is shared. Harry has his own private secretary just like W&K.

Foreign Affairs Adviser, Sir David Manning GCMG, KCVO is shared by all three.

Advisor, Mr. Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton MVO MBE (Part-Time) is shared by all three

Communications Secretary, Jason Knauf is shared by all three

Deputy Communications Secretary, Nick Loughran is shared by all three.

KP is an occupied royal palace and by statute the upkeep and maintenance comes from the Sovereign Grant.

Anmer Hall expenses are met privately

So basically Harry shares the staff and resources with W&K.

We don't know the exact breakdown as Charles doesn't provide the details although in 2013 an article from the Daily Express quotes Charles's then principal private secretary William Nye that his boss would have to look carefully at how much he could continue to fund the activities of the three younger royals in addition to his and Camilla's duties if the balance of work changed.

That may come to a head if William decides in September to quit his job as an RAF search and rescue helicopter pilot and become a fulltime working royal. "Whatever the Duke of Cambridge's plans, the Prince of Wales would have to look carefully at how he continues to fund the official activities of the staff and support for the five senior members of the Royal Family whom he is paying for," said Mr Nye.

And just to keep things in perspective. William, Kate and Harry employ the fulltime equivalent of 10.5 staff, compared to 148.3 for Charles and Camilla.

So its easy to see why Charles doesn't have much wiggle room with his finances.

I wasn't talking about the KP office staff however, such as Press Secretaries etc whose salaries etc are hidden away in Civil Service archives. Nor did I say or infer that Charles helps with the maintenance at Kensington Palace. I know very well that that money comes from the Sovereign Grant.

I was talking about allowances given by Charles assisting the private lives of William (and Kate) and Harry.
Some of the extensions and renovations at Anmer,which are private, were no doubt paid for by Charles as assistance to his son and daughter in law. It was hinted at the time that Anmer was being fitted out that William wasnt meeting the entire expense.

In case you're thinking I'm having a go at the Cambridges I've also got no doubt that when Harry marries and has to modernise a Crown property Charles will help there as well.

Harry doesn't live with the Cambridges, nor does he employ the same number of staff such as housekeeper, cook, nanny etc. I happen to believe that Charles probably helps with some of those staff expenses in the allowance he gives William.

Video:
Former solider Prince Harry was speaking at a reception for the Endeavour Fund, a project led by his and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's Royal Foundation. Prince Harry paid tribute to the service personnel who 'refuse to be beaten or defined by their injuries'.Home - ITNSource News

__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.

I wonder why the idea of being a "full-time royal" is talked about like it's some sort of death sentence? When you see many royals, British and others, go about their full-time duties with great energy, joy, pizazz and they're doing some amazing things. I've seen royals redefine the art of being a full-time working royal, and it's really no longer just cutting ribbons and shaking hands. When it comes down to the younger royals, full-time royal duties is made to seem like it's a form of capital punishment.

__________________

__________________"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."